BACKGROUND: Patient advocates are increasingly involved in cooperative group trials, single-institution cancer programs, and peer-review of research applications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role and value of patient advocates from the perspective of Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) advocates and investigators. METHODS: An online survey was sent to current and past (within 5 years) patient advocates and investigators. RESULTS.: Response rates were 72.7% (16 of 22) for advocates and 56.4% (102 of 181) for investigators. Patient advocates were more likely than investigators to report the following: the clinical trial process benefited from advocate involvement on committees (100% of advocates vs 72.1% of investigators; P < .05), advocates contribute to protocol development (92.8% vs 33.8%, respectively; P < .001), the cultural appropriateness of protocols (21.4% vs 10.4%, respectively; P < .05), advocates assist with patient accrual (78.6% vs 23.4%, respectively; P < .001), and advocates add value to concept development and protocol review (100% vs 63.2%, respectively; P < .001). Over half of advocates and investigators reported gaps in patient advocate knowledge and suggested that additional clinical trials training was needed. To improve clinical trials, advocates suggested their earlier involvement in protocol development and increased support from investigators. CALGB investigators recommended improving patient advocate selection and communication skills training: CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patient advocates and investigators perceived benefits from advocate involvement in the clinical trials process; patient advocates placed more value on their role than investigators. The current results indicated that strategies to improve advocacy training and advocate-investigator communication may further enhance the role of patient advocates, and future studies that clarify the role of advocates in the prioritization and development of protocol, consent, and education materials, and on patient accrual, are warranted.
BACKGROUND:Patient advocates are increasingly involved in cooperative group trials, single-institution cancer programs, and peer-review of research applications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role and value of patient advocates from the perspective of Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) advocates and investigators. METHODS: An online survey was sent to current and past (within 5 years) patient advocates and investigators. RESULTS.: Response rates were 72.7% (16 of 22) for advocates and 56.4% (102 of 181) for investigators. Patient advocates were more likely than investigators to report the following: the clinical trial process benefited from advocate involvement on committees (100% of advocates vs 72.1% of investigators; P < .05), advocates contribute to protocol development (92.8% vs 33.8%, respectively; P < .001), the cultural appropriateness of protocols (21.4% vs 10.4%, respectively; P < .05), advocates assist with patient accrual (78.6% vs 23.4%, respectively; P < .001), and advocates add value to concept development and protocol review (100% vs 63.2%, respectively; P < .001). Over half of advocates and investigators reported gaps in patient advocate knowledge and suggested that additional clinical trials training was needed. To improve clinical trials, advocates suggested their earlier involvement in protocol development and increased support from investigators. CALGB investigators recommended improving patient advocate selection and communication skills training: CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patient advocates and investigators perceived benefits from advocate involvement in the clinical trials process; patient advocates placed more value on their role than investigators. The current results indicated that strategies to improve advocacy training and advocate-investigator communication may further enhance the role of patient advocates, and future studies that clarify the role of advocates in the prioritization and development of protocol, consent, and education materials, and on patient accrual, are warranted.
Authors: Patricia A Deverka; Rick Bangs; Karma Kreizenbeck; Deborah M Delaney; Dawn L Hershman; Charles D Blanke; Scott D Ramsey Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeannine M Salamone; Wanda Lucas; Shelley B Brundage; Jamie N Holloway; Sherri M Stahl; Nora E Carbine; Margery London; Naomi Greenwood; Rosa Goyes; Deborah Charles Chisholm; Erin Price; Roberta Carlin; Susan Winarsky; Kirsten B Baker; Julia Maues; Ayesha N Shajahan-Haq Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Janet L Wale; David Chandler; Deborah Collyar; Dominique Hamerlijnck; Roberto Saldana; Zack Pemberton-Whitely Journal: Front Med Technol Date: 2022-01-25
Authors: Bridie Angela Evans; Emma Bedson; Philip Bell; Hayley Hutchings; Lesley Lowes; David Rea; Anne Seagrove; Stefan Siebert; Graham Smith; Helen Snooks; Marie Thomas; Kym Thorne; Ian Russell Journal: Trials Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Leona M Batten; Indrani Subarna Bhattacharya; Laura Moretti; Joanne S Haviland; Marie A Emson; Sarah E Miller; Monica Jefford; Mairead MacKenzie; Maggie Wilcox; Marie Hyslop; Rachel Todd; Claire F Snowdon; Judith M Bliss Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2018-07-16
Authors: Monica Parry; Ann Kristin Bjørnnes; Karine Toupin-April; Adhiyat Najam; David Wells; Aditi Sivakumar; Dawn P Richards; Tina Ceroni; Marianne Park; Anne K Ellis; Ian Gilron; Susan Marlin Journal: Patient Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 3.883